In their article, Thomas Malone, Robert Laubacher and Tammy Johns discuss such a concept as hyperspecialization. This term can be defined as breaking or decomposing the work that is usually performed by a single person into separate elements or pieces. Moreover, these pieces should be done by two or more people.
The authors believe that this approach can greatly increase the performance of many businesses. In my opinion, this question is very important nowadays when business administrators try to find ways of raising the productivity of their firms, especially manufacturers. Moreover, this question can have significant implications for employees who want to find work that suits their interests or expertise.
The discussion presented by the scholars is based on the model of comparative advantage that originates from the ideas of Adam Smith. This theoretical model implies that individuals and groups are more likely to succeed, if they are engaged in the activities in which they are most skilled.
Furthermore, the authors rely on such a concept as the division of labor which means that by dividing the manufacturing process into several short tasks that should be completed by several workers. From their standpoint, the principles of labor division can be applied to many modern companies in which employees do not have an opportunity to display their expertise. These are the main arguments that the scholars put forward and they should not be neglected by managers and executives.
One should take into consideration that the authors of this article do not claim that their idea of hyperspecialization is entirely innovative. As it has been said before, they recognize the influence of Adam Smith on their discussion. Nevertheless, they want to show that many firms can benefit from hyperspecialization.
This issue is particularly relevant at the time when information technologies have become extremely sophisticated. Business administrators can do it by enabling workers to do the jobs that they can do best. They justify their recommendation by investigating the use of this method by different firms.
The authors rely mostly on the qualitative information collected from several companies. Their research technique can be described as a case study. The scholars paid close attention to the opinions of managers who applied the principles of hyperspecialization. Furthermore, they examined the views of clients who used the services of companies in which the principles of hyperspecialization were fully implemented. This approach enabled them to look at this issue from different perspectives.
One should keep in mind that the researchers did not carry out statistical tests which could confirm the relationship between the productivity of a firm and the manufacturing technique that this organization adopted. Moreover, their sample of companies was very limited. This is the main limitation of this research article. Certainly, this drawback does not completely undermine the arguments of the authors. However, it indicates that the findings of these scholars cannot be generalized.
On the whole, the findings presented in the article suggest that hyperspecialization can improve the operational efficiency of businesses because it enables people to focus on those tasks in which they are most competent.
Nevertheless, the scholars acknowledge the drawbacks of this strategy since it can result in the lack of coordination, disappearance of many jobs, and increased supervision of workers. Nevertheless, despite these risks, hyperspecialization can be viewed as one of the techniques that can increase the productivity of many companies.